(1) The 911 call I never made
Deputies from the Greene County Sheriff's Office (GCSO) brought roughly six to eight officers and multiple assault rifles and other weaponry to our eviction. Their explanation was that I had placed a 911 call, threatening to take physical action against anyone who tried to evict us.

But let's examine the more important issue: Numerous readers and friends have asked me, "Why did the Missouri cops enter your apartment like a SWAT team, and with an attitude that led to Carol's arm being broken?" David's e-mail, I think, helps explain that. Here it is:

Roger: Per your request and your threat to sue me, I am doing my best to stay out of your business. As a good faith effort to stay out of your business, I would appreciate it if you would not respond to this e-mail. A deputy called me today and asked me to have you contact him. He said he posted the notice to vacate on the Cowherd property. He also said he was concerned because his dispatch contacted him and said you had called 911 and threatened to shoot anyone coming on the premises to get you out. I certainly hope that you did not really do that, but he asked me to make you aware that they take such threats seriously and that you are setting up a potentially dangerous situation. He stressed to me that he would like to help you find housing and that he did not want you or anyone else to get hurt. His name is deputy Harrison and his phone number is 501-6092. He is very concerned and stressed to me that he did not wish for you or anyone else to get hurt.

Do the documents provide any evidence that I actually communicated an unlawful threat to anyone? Nope. But officers used information based on fourth- or fifth-hand hearsay to justify barging into our home and pointing assault rifles and pistols at us. . . .

In other words, an individual from Burrell Behavioral Health and my brothers (Paul and David) damned near got us killed.

Records show that the 911 call came at about 10:22 a.m. on Aug. 12, 2015, from a Burrell Health case manager named Joshua Davis. Here is the key note regarding the call:

CLR (caller) is a Burrell case manager. SUS (suspect) threatened to shoot anyone who came to evict them. There is an eviction notice on the door.

SUS: DOB 1956. MW, 55-60, gray hair, he owns a gun, prescription medication for PTSD and depression. Last spoke to Roger on 8/4/15. Roger's relatives called Josh with Burrell to report threats. Burrell made a Dept. of Health and Senior Services on (sic) 8/7/15

Roger's phone number is 205-381-5673.

So, did I place a threatening call to 911, as a Missouri cop claimed? Nope. The call came from a Burrell Health case manager and was based on fourth- or fifth-hand hearsay that had nothing to do with me. How riddled with inaccuracy is this report? It said I owned a gun. Is that true? Nope.

Don't be surprised if a similarly outrageous lie surfaces in the KeAndre Wilkerson story.

(2) A female cop claims Carol "barreled, head first" into her
Here is what Officer Debi Wade claims happened in the moment before her colleagues body slammed Carol to the ground and yanked viciously on her limbs in a motion that broke her left arm:

Just as she appeared to be getting into the passenger side door to the car, [Carol] started screaming that she needed her cat's litter box. I was trying to tell her that I would go back into the residence for it, when she suddenly took off on a dead run toward the front door of the residence. Knowing that Deputy Harrison would be exiting that door at any moment, I feared that she would catch him off guard, so I jogged up behind Carol and attempted to tell her I would get the litter box for her. Just as I caught up to her, she suddenly pivoted and barreled into me head first. I was caught off guard, and as my left arm automatically came up to block my face in a reactive manner, I automatically turned my body to my right in an attempt to blade my gun side away from her while I regained my footing. At this time both Lt. [Christian] Conrad and Deputy Harrison came in from either side to secure Carol's arms and place her in handcuffs.

By "secur[ing] Carol's arms," Wade means "breaking Carol's arm" -- and we think it's likely that an officer other than Conrad and Harrison, an officer who remains identified only as "Mr. Blue Shirt" to us, was involved.

Did such a "barreling head first" incident actually happen? Of course not, as anyone who has ever known Carol could attest. Here's how I explained it in an earlier post:

A Missouri deputy claims in a Probable Cause (PC) Statement that my wife, Carol, "barreled into [her] head first" in the moments before another officer broke Carol's arm during an unlawful eviction in September 2015. The claim, from deputy Debi Wade, is preposterous -- and it apparently was designed to buttress a bogus "assault on a law enforcement officer" charge against Carol, which led to her arrest in January.

I use the term "preposterous" to describe Wade's claim for two reasons: (1) She places the "barreling" event near the front door of our duplex apartment, and I saw everything that happened in that area, from the front seat of our car, parked about 15 feet away in the driveway. Carol never initiated contact with Wade, and I never saw Wade make contact with Carol, unless it was to help her off the ground after another officer had body slammed Carol and broken her left arm by yanking on both arms in an upward and back motion; (2) Greene County Prosecuting Attorney (PA) Dan Patterson apparently does not believe Wade's account because, in his Misdemeanor Information (MI) filed with the court, he charged Carol with only one count of assault on an officer -- and that allegedly was against a male officer named Jeremy Lynn, and it was inside our apartment, just as officers had thrust open the door.Carol is not charged with assaulting Wade, so one has to wonder why Wade included false information that even the PA does not believe -- or at least, he does not believe it amounted to a criminal offense. It also raises questions about Wade's credibility, especially when you consider all the other hokum in her PC Statement.

Yes, Wade's story was so wild that even a prosecutor apparently did not believe it, so Carol is not charged with the "barreling" business. (Probable Cause Statement and Misdemeanor Information are embedded at the end of this post.) I know it didn't happen because I saw the whole thing from about 15 feet away. And with multiple cop cars on the scene, it's likely at least one dash cam caught the incident on video, which will prove Debi Wade is a liar of the most foul variety. And she could face criminal charges for that.

When the lies start flying in the KeAndre Wilkerson case, don't be surprised if they get so wild that you are forced to suspend belief.

Here is a good article about the Wilkerson, with updated info near end:

http://revcom.us/a/523/alabama-police-brutalize-black-youth-en.html

In the face of community outrage, the Alabama State Bureau of Investigations is now looking into the case, but said they will not release any information about the investigation, nor release the body camera footage of the police attack, until their investigation is finished—sometime in February!

Thanks for sharing @9:53. The end of February is almost here, so news should be coming soon. Unless officials go into their "four corners offense," like they have in Mike Hubbard appeal and Don Siegelman FOIA request.

Lots of interesting information in article about the Wilkerson case, referenced by @9:58:

Police claim they approached, chased, and nearly beat the life out of Wilkerson because he was walking out from behind a downtown business Saturday night, and ran when he saw them. Even if this is true, what fucking reason, or right, did they have to approach him, stop him, or chase him? Even they don’t claim he was doing anything wrong. Yet he is referred to by the police chief as “the suspect.”

The Troy police chief said Wilkerson resisted arrest and refused to comply with commands to put his hands behind his back, so “officers had to use physical force to affect the arrest. The force used was reasonable and necessary.” Reasonable to whom? Necessary for what? Reasonable to the enforcers of a system that has enslaved, raped, segregated, lynched, beaten, murdered, and incarcerated Black people since they were dragged to these shores, and while the forms have been “modernized,” the oppression, degradation, and inhumanity have never ceased. Necessary because the message has to be delivered over, and over, and over again—don’t even think about resisting, let alone finally putting an end to this nightmare.

The Pike County district attorney told CNN a different story; that “police said they used force after Wilkerson reached into his waistband for what they feared might be a weapon.” The phrase “reached into his waistband” is pig-speak, used over and over to claim they “feared for their lives” whenever these killers are caught brutalizing or murdering their unarmed target. In this case, the family is supposed to be “grateful” that their son was only beaten bloody—the pigs could have just killed him.

How loose has the definition of "suspect" become in cop-talk circles. Don't you need a defined offense in order to consider someone a "suspect" of committing that offense? Well, what offense was Mr. Wilkerson suspected of committing? I can't figure that out.

The whole system does suck, and we aren't the only ones who think so. Consider the words of the late Monroe Freedman, who was considered the founder of legal ethics as an academic field:

"Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges.

"I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with no-publication and no-citation rules.”

Freedman spoke those words almost 30 years ago, and I think it's safe to say the situation only has gotten worse.

With all of those cops at your eviction, that means there were a lot of vehicles around. And that means this was captured on one, or more, dash-cam videos. You can bet the video looks extremely bad for the cops, and their lies are going to be exposed -- and that's why the prosecutors are stonewalling on discovery.

How come no one in Congress thinks civil rights lawsuits should be paid for by The Government so that a Targeted Individual (TI) can have his day in court on a somewhat even playing field.

This country is 20 Trillion dollars in debt because of a Military-Police-F=ck You Surveillance Complex staffed by opportunistic, profiteering, gumshoe, slimeball, right wing, Republican assholes........and.........hardly any funding supports civil rights investigations or access to lawyers to litigate civil rights violations??? I've never heard of a civil rights prosecution or FBI investigation in South Dakota for thirty years?

The financial burden of litigation-investigation of civil rights violations and the implausibility of getting the cops-surveillance state to admit any of their copious sins committed behind layers of deception and so called secret classified programs, makes civil rights litigation an almost impossible burden for the average TI.

When a secret police state slander campaign targets people at their job site to create a financial meltdown, you can imagine the impossible climb towards justice for a TI when he faces secret, entrenched, scheming, "Win At All Costs", scumbags claiming to be public servants. Public servants talk a line of crap as they manufacture the pretense of concern...so they can conduct a bogus scripted home invasion that breaks a woman's bones?!

I think we can carve out a Constitutional Right to have access to civil rights litigators....since...we've already funded the goons, thugs, liars, scheming lowlifes, and shameless marsupial donkey court system.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze, but you've outdone yourself with this one:

(1) How is a camera trained on the front door going to show Carol pushing the door on the officer? The door was solid, and Carol was on the inside. The cops have a see-through camera? You've been reading too many comic books.

(2) What is unlawful about a resident pushing on the door against someone she believes to be an unlawful intruder? And in this case, Carol correctly assessed that it was an unlawful intruder. Are you saying a resident has no right to resist an unlawful intruder into their home?

(3) Camera footage would be relevant to all kinds of issues related to the criminal charge. It would show Debi Wade is lying about the "barreling headfirst" BS. Since she is author of the PC Statement, anything that destroys her credibility destroys the cops' case. It would show the cops knowingly left information out of the PC Statement about the brutality they employed against Carol, and that alone is grounds for dismissal of the charges. It would show Jim Arnott, leader of the GCSO, pointing and lying about Carol "assaulting a police officer," when she had just been assaulted. It would show the cops lied about Carol breaking her own arm in squad car. In essence, it would leave cop credibility in tatters and could subject them to criminal charges of lying under oath.

(4) The criminal charge already is a settled matter. No named person accuses Carol of pushing Jeremy Lynn in PC Statement, so there is no probable cause. And Jeremy Lynn himself admits in investigative report that he initiated contact with Carol by grabbing her -- and that means, under Missouri law, she is not guilty. The criminal charge has not been an open question for a long time -- it's open and shut in favor of Carol.

You aren't going to see any of this because it doesn't fit your agenda. But that's the way it is, and that's why you are scared shitless. Your con games that have worked for so many years are about to blow up in your face -- you know it, and you can't fathom it.

(1) You have zero understanding of the Missouri statute. The issue is, "Who caused (initiated) physical contact?" Lynn already has admitted he initiated contact, so he can't very well change his testimony later, unless of course he wants to be charged with perjury. I've cited case law on this, which I'm sure you refuse to read or comprehend.

(2) Lynn already has admitted that Carol pulled away from him. Again, he can't very well change his story. Despite the delusions that roll in your head, Lynn did not say Carol pushed him. He's locked into that story, and that's why it's a settled matter. Yes, the case is pending -- as I am well aware -- but various issues already have been settled because of officer statements that they can't change.

As a parting gift, we invite you to take your fears and stupidity and shove them up your ass.

Face it, bub, you and your buddies are in trouble, and you could be headed to prison because we will pursue criminal charges on this, too. Count on it. Five-year SOL, so you've got a long time to stew in your nasty juices.

I would like to see The TV show "Sixty Minutes" do a follow up on their Seigleman story (that I believe was made available to them via "The Legal Schnauzer" blog) by covering The Roger Shuler story-post Seigleman.

Wouldn't that be a story: a blogger gets out in front of the mainstream media on a story showing endemic GOP corruption, Rovian machinations, and abuse of discretion by DOJ-Fed Judges...then get's COINed from every angle like most Targeted Individuals during the course of vastly expanding technocratic surveillance state in which nobody who needs to know is allowed to know about secret layers of surveillance using secret "sources, methods, tactics, and technology".

They (CBS) might be interested at "Sixty Minutes" but haven't heard from anyone to brief them about the parameters of what happens to online journalists who practice free speech-free press.

I'm going to give you some advice, and I strongly suggest you take it:

I've put up with your bullshit comments for several months, much longer than I should have. But this is a demand that you leave me alone and cease sending comments to Legal Schnauzer.

You seem to be dense, so maybe you don't grasp this, but let me make it clear: Almost all of your comments have essentially been making light of a case where cops brutally broke my wife's arm into dozens of pieces. Carol and I have been married for almost 30 years, she matters a great deal to me, and I will no longer tolerate comments from you or anyone else that treat the brutality against her as a joke.

Take this as official notice that your communication with me is unwanted, and you clearly have no purpose than to cause Carol and me emotional distress. I suggest you check the Missouri statute on harassing communications. You are crossing the line on that, and you are getting real close to cyber stalking.

If I continue to receive communications from you, I will file a criminal complaint and make sure you are tracked down for arrest and prosecution. You would be wise not to respond to this message and to send no more communications of any kind in my direction.

I suggest you take this seriously because, if this harassment campaign of yours continues, I will come after you. Count on it.